Jump to content
LittleHurt05

2015-2016 NFL Thread

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 09:46 AM)
I'm guessing that the judge ruled that the NFL didn't actually follow the discipline process, which given how vindictive and arbitrary Goodell has been, isn't exactly a stretch.

 

edit: jenks, maybe the disciplinary process spelled out in the CBA requires notice of the potential penalties?

 

edit2: deadspin has the ruling up

 

I mean the devil is in the details of the opinion, but if that's the case, that would require the CBA to include every conceivable violation a player can make and then the potential penalty to go along with it. How is that realistic?

 

edit: that's literally his opinion: there was no notice to Brady that he could be in trouble for deflating balls or not cooperating in the investigation (citing to the fact that the NFL has never done it before) and therefore he also lacked notice that a violation of same would be equivalent to a 4 game suspension from steroid use. What a horses*** analysis. By this logic, from this point forward any new violation made by a player that is not spelled out in the CBA means the player can't be penalized.

Edited by Jenksismybitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The judge warned the NFL here, they told them to settle this with Brady and be done with it. They didnt, and he decided it. Too bad, so sad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 2, 2015 -> 05:22 PM)
http://thebiglead.com/2015/09/02/jessica-m...cot-mccloughan/

 

Thank you Redskins, for being yourselves

 

Unrealted but why did the guy go the Comcast offices with a Fox Sports hat on and I still see no real benefit to 99% of all twitter accounts.

 

The narcissism of America is growing exponentially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 10:02 AM)
I mean the devil is in the details of the opinion, but if that's the case, that would require the CBA to include every conceivable violation a player can make and then the potential penalty to go along with it. How is that realistic?

No, it could just mean that they need to lay out the possible consequences at the start of an investigation. Wasn't everyone pretty shocked when the 4-game suspension was initially announced? As it is, Goodell just gets to make it up as he goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 10:09 AM)
No, it could just mean that they need to lay out the possible consequences at the start of an investigation. Wasn't everyone pretty shocked when the 4-game suspension was initially announced? As it is, Goodell just gets to make it up as he goes.

 

But why is that required? What difference does that make? Why does it matter if it's money damages, a game or 10 games. You either cheated or you didn't. Who cares of Goodell has all encompassing powers? That's his right per the CBA. That's what the players agreed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if that's what they agreed to or not, I'm speculating why the judge would make "no notification of possible penalties" part of the ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not providing Brady access to files and not allowing him to question Pash seem to be the two major parts here. That first argument about notice is such nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 09:33 AM)
This is total bulls***. Brady is a cheater and a jackass. I actually wish physical harm upon him. I still don't get how judges can tell the NFL how to run their league. If I were the league I'd tell the Patriots if Brady takes the field, they forfeit the game.

 

You wish physical harm against a player because they deflated footballs? Seems rational.

 

Are you a Dolphins fan? Bills? Jets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 10:15 AM)
Not providing Brady access to files and not allowing him to question Pash seem to be the two major parts here. That first argument about notice is such nonsense.

Possibly, but the ruling also stated that the reliance on the "conduct detrimental" clause was "legally misplaced," and that's the clause that gives Goodell broad discretion. Maybe that's the part that's relevant to the notification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 10:15 AM)
Not providing Brady access to files and not allowing him to question Pash seem to be the two major parts here. That first argument about notice is such nonsense.

 

Not at all. In labor relations law, "notice" is universally regarded as one of the essential elements required to establish "just cause" for discipline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 10:18 AM)
Not at all. In labor relations law, "notice" is universally regarded as one of the essential elements required to establish "just cause" for discipline.

 

But he had notice that tampering with equipment was a violation of the rules. And i'm not sure that obstructing an investigation really needs to be spelled out in a CBA to put a player on notice that what he was doing was in violation of the rules. Why should that have to be clarified more than "conduct detrimental to the league?"

 

And again, saying he wasn't on notice that these violations carried a potential 4 game suspension like steriod use is dumb. The NFL shouldn't have to come up with an entire penalty system for violations that have never occurred before - it's uncharted territory for a reason. The Commish, if he's got the authority to penalize a player, also has the right to determine a fair and reasonable punishment. Who cares if he wasn't aware that he could be penalized like steroid violations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 10:26 AM)
But he had notice that tampering with equipment was a violation of the rules. And i'm not sure that obstructing an investigation really needs to be spelled out in a CBA to put a player on notice that what he was doing was in violation of the rules. Why should that have to be clarified more than "conduct detrimental to the league?"

 

And again, saying he wasn't on notice that these violations carried a potential 4 game suspension like steriod use is dumb. The NFL shouldn't have to come up with an entire penalty system for violations that have never occurred before - it's uncharted territory for a reason. The Commish, if he's got the authority to penalize a player, also has the right to determine a fair and reasonable punishment. Who cares if he wasn't aware that he could be penalized like steroid violations.

 

The penalties for tampering with equipment were clearly spelled out, and they didn't include lengthy suspensions. I think that's the problem. "The Commish" doesn't have the right to violate the contracts they've signed and arbitrarily hand out punishments without due process. The courts have ruled several times now that the "conduct detrimental" clause doesn't give the NFL the power to unilaterally override all of the other parts spelled out in the CBA regarding infractions and discipline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it matters because according to the ruling it seems that the lack of notice of the potential penalty violates the "law of shop". (Langhorne) Which basically said that in order for the violation to be enforceable the rule must be clear and unambiguous as well as the consequence of the violation. (see footnote page 27 of ruling)

 

Under the player policy which Brady was given, the violation for deflating balls was a fine for competitive equipment. Brady never received notice of something else called the "Competitive Integrity Policy" which was only given to executives and coaches. (See page 30) Previous precedent made it so that the NFL was not allowed to retroactively apply the policy. (See page 30)

 

The Judge then went on to say that the comparison to conduct detrimental policy in the steroids cases was bad because those players were suspended after there were findings specifically under the domestic violence policy.

 

Basically since Brady was told a competitive equipment advantage would only be a fine, it was ultimately unfair to suspend him when he had no idea that was the penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 10:30 AM)
Well it matters because according to the ruling it seems that the lack of notice of the potential penalty violates the "law of shop". (Langhorne) Which basically said that in order for the violation to be enforceable the rule must be clear and unambiguous as well as the consequence of the violation. (see footnote page 27 of ruling)

 

Under the player policy which Brady was given, the violation for deflating balls was a fine for competitive equipment. Brady never received notice of something else called the "Competitive Integrity Policy" which was only given to executives and coaches. (See page 30) Previous precedent made it so that the NFL was not allowed to retroactively apply the policy. (See page 30)

 

The Judge then went on to say that the comparison to conduct detrimental policy in the steroids cases was bad because those players were suspended after there were findings specifically under the domestic violence policy.

 

Basically since Brady was told a competitive equipment advantage would only be a fine, it was ultimately unfair to suspend him when he had no idea that was the penalty.

 

But again, this hasn't happened before, which the NFL admitted. You've got a player that violated a rule and then tried to hid it. Why should there be a requirement of notice to something not anticipated by either the NFL or the players union? And why cut away the conduct detrimental clause, which was included precisely in these situations as a catch all?

 

And didn't Goodell rule that Brady was involving with the deflation? If not, the fact that he believed he was involved but didn't specifically rule/conclude that he was definitely, isn't that just a technicality?

 

Edit: and keep in mind this is a decision wherein the court is supposed to give great deference to the arbitrator. Seems to me he's given basically no deference on this notice point. Again, i think there's some ok arguments made about Brady's inability to question Pash or look at evidence. But this argument is weak.

 

edit 2: without going back to Goodell's opinion, here's ESPN's summary of it regarding Brady's involvement: "The commissioner said he concluded Brady "knew about, approved of, consented to, and provided inducements and rewards" to ensure balls were deflated." Seems pretty definitive to me that Goodell ruled that Brady violated the rule on football inflation.

Edited by Jenksismybitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 07:33 AM)
This is total bulls***. Brady is a cheater and a jackass. I actually wish physical harm upon him. I still don't get how judges can tell the NFL how to run their league. If I were the league I'd tell the Patriots if Brady takes the field, they forfeit the game.

Luck should be suspended too since they had a bunch of delated footballs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 10:39 AM)
But again, this hasn't happened before, which the NFL admitted. You've got a player that violated a rule and then tried to hid it. Why should there be a requirement of notice to something not anticipated by either the NFL or the players union? And why cut away the conduct detrimental clause, which was included precisely in these situations as a catch all?

 

And didn't Goodell rule that Brady was involving with the deflation? If not, the fact that he believed he was involved but didn't specifically rule/conclude that he was definitely, isn't that just a technicality?

 

Edit: and keep in mind this is a decision wherein the court is supposed to give great deference to the arbitrator. Seems to me he's given basically no deference on this notice point. Again, i think there's some ok arguments made about Brady's inability to question Pash or look at evidence. But this argument is weak.

 

edit 2: without going back to Goodell's opinion, here's ESPN's summary of it regarding Brady's involvement: "The commissioner said he concluded Brady "knew about, approved of, consented to, and provided inducements and rewards" to ensure balls were deflated." Seems pretty definitive to me that Goodell ruled that Brady violated the rule on football inflation.

 

Because the judge found its more appropriate to apply the rule that said competitive advantage for equipment was a fine. They point to specific incidents where a ball was tampered with (being heated) and they were given a warning.

 

And non-cooperation has happened before, the Judge specifically referenced that no player had ever been suspended for obstruction. (See Page 20)

 

The law requires due process. According to the rules given to Brady, cheating by manipulating equipment was a fine. No one had ever received any penalty greater than a fine for that. If the law says that the maximum penalty for stealing is 5 years, they cant sentence me to death. In the judge's opinion (and Im just explaining the decision), there were established rules/penalties and Goodell went beyond them arbitrarily. As such that violates CBA law and the decision can be overturned.

 

Whether he is right or not, its definitely concerning what Goodell is trying to do. I also think that ultimately the judge is trying to say to Goodell that he cant just merely make s*** up as he goes, even if thats what the strictest reading of the CBA may suggest. That there are always fundamental due process principles and he has to at least give the players a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luck should be suspended too since they had a bunch of delated footballs.

 

Teams use their own footballs. Luck never got to throw a ball that had been deflated by the Patriots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this deadspin article basically captures my sentiments

 

Goodell flexed on Tom Brady simply because Brady wouldn’t cooperate with this investigatory cosplay, and that’s the funniest thing about all of this. Goodell and his minions got all the power they wanted, and all it’s resulted in is a player who almost definitely did what he was accused of sticking his middle finger in Goodell’s face and getting off scot-free. In the real world, it turns out, due process isn’t an impediment to justice, but the basis of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 10:42 AM)
Allegedly violated a rule and allegedly tried to hide it.

 

The NFL couldn't anticipate a player not cooperating with an investigation?

 

Not allegedly, Goodell ruled that he did. That's the point of the process.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 11:32 AM)

 

See, I guess that's my problem. I mean, again, this whole thing was a farce and ridiculous, but we all know Brady was involved. And we all know he destroyed his phone to destroy direct evidence linking him to it. And yet based on some pretty weak technicalities, we don't get the result we all think is appropriate (some kind of punishment).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Some kind of punishment" is maybe a fine, maybe, if the NFL could even reliably show that the balls were underinflated (they initially seemed unaware that ambient temperature affects pressure, and they used two different gauges and don't know which was used for which measurements). Missing a quarter of a season? Ridiculous, and exactly why he's been slapped down. Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 10:58 AM)
Because the judge found its more appropriate to apply the rule that said competitive advantage for equipment was a fine. They point to specific incidents where a ball was tampered with (being heated) and they were given a warning.

 

And non-cooperation has happened before, the Judge specifically referenced that no player had ever been suspended for obstruction. (See Page 20)

 

The law requires due process. According to the rules given to Brady, cheating by manipulating equipment was a fine. No one had ever received any penalty greater than a fine for that. If the law says that the maximum penalty for stealing is 5 years, they cant sentence me to death. In the judge's opinion (and Im just explaining the decision), there were established rules/penalties and Goodell went beyond them arbitrarily. As such that violates CBA law and the decision can be overturned.

 

Whether he is right or not, its definitely concerning what Goodell is trying to do. I also think that ultimately the judge is trying to say to Goodell that he cant just merely make s*** up as he goes, even if thats what the strictest reading of the CBA may suggest. That there are always fundamental due process principles and he has to at least give the players a chance.

 

But again, you're asking the NFL to come up with language in a CBA for every potential violation by a player. That's an impossible task, hence the catch all provision the commissioner was given by the players. I can understand reigning that power in when it's not applied fairly or justly, but I don't see that here. I can totally understand and get behind the rationale of comparing this situation to a 1st time steroid user - you tried to cheat and even though it didn't result in wins/losses, you still tried and got caught. And just because I don't have direct proof of it, I have circumstantial evidence, including your deliberate attempt to destroy evidence that the NFL wanted for its investigation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 11:45 AM)
See, I guess that's my problem. I mean, again, this whole thing was a farce and ridiculous, but we all know Brady was involved. And we all know he destroyed his phone to destroy direct evidence linking him to it. And yet based on some pretty weak technicalities, we don't get the result we all think is appropriate (some kind of punishment).

 

Lets not forget the Patriots received a huge penalty. I think all things being equal that the end result is probably slightly harsh on the Patriots.

 

(edit)

 

You also keep failing to recognize that never before had anyone who was caught tampering with footballs been given anything close to this harsh of a penalty. Even if it was just 1 game I think the NFL probably wins here. But 4 games was pretty ridiculous when the other instances were mere warning or fines.

Edited by Soxbadger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×